Lacey residents urge council to change tree-permit rules after years of storm damage

At the Jan. 6 City of Lacey council meeting, several residents raised safety and property concerns tied to the city’s tree-permit process, saying restrictions on removals are leaving homes exposed to falling limbs and ongoing damage.

"For decades, my neighbors and I have suffered under property damage and downright terror from the towering 100 feet plus fir trees," said a longtime resident identifying herself as Shelly, who said city staff required an arborist review and then allowed only two trees to be removed. "If there's even a hint of risk to people's safety or property damage at the hands of these trees, people's safety and property should always come first."

Other speakers who identified themselves as homeowners described similar problems. Nikki Pearson said nine large firs crowd a one-third-acre lot next to her home and that routine debris and limb-fall have required her to spend a full day clearing mess and replacing gutters and roofing. "I didn't expect to have to tell you guys all because I didn't know the procedure today," Pearson said, adding that she had undertaken the process but was limited by the permit terms.

Tracy Dunsmore said her child fears sleeping at home during windstorms because of limb-fall and described having paid for arborist evaluations and saved to cover removal costs. "We can only remove 2 or max of 3 every 5 years," she said, summarizing what she was told by the permitting office and asking the council to reconsider the limit.

Homeowner Jennifer Bane said she secured estimates and financing after buying her house but learned the permit would allow the removal of only two trees or three only if a tree were replanted. She said the root system has damaged septic lines and that the trees remain a neighborhood hazard. "These are over 100 foot fir trees," Bane said.

Speakers said planners cited an arborist finding that the trees were not dead or dying even while the arborist warned the trees were "prone to limb failure during windstorms." Several asked whether the city would accept liability for damage if the city required neighbors to keep hazardous trees; according to Shelly, the city responded that residents must seek insurance or sue neighbors.

The presiding official acknowledged the seriousness of the complaints, said the council had not previously heard this matter, and promised staff would follow up and the council would discuss next steps. "I just heard about this tonight for the first time, and so this is a—we will follow up about what the next steps are and, and we'll have a council conversation about it for sure," the presiding official said.

The speakers requested a review of the permitting standards that dictate removal limits and the role of arborist reports in allowing or denying removals. The council made no formal change to policy at the meeting; the mayor asked staff to return with options.

What happens next: council staff will follow up with the homeowners and place the matter on a future council discussion, according to the presiding official's remarks at the meeting's close.